



A V « 

\ l 

*' .&♦ V*-.. 

. , C 0 b «J 

S - ^ ^ © 

o \0 «t*j 

^ * * * 19 * ^ ^j> * * ■» 


a* - 
a' 9 <• 


* ^ \V * 

© V* . ,V » 





V’ ."cs. .o v ^ 



^ v *v 


« V 



r ;«: * 

*J-\ «* 

<£■ * ~ r 

" 3 * * © • * * 

**» *b. / *©* « * ~ .. 

£3,* O S& * tx^Sv .* ^ 

* .t* 4 a ■* ■sSSSMnr^,* nr* 

^b V *^<f 

; »°^ 

,o *v *T^*v «.►* o. * 



'*•„ ^ A* * 

. V-V 

<A ^/p o 
* &? & 
(*J *U * 


O r 

* *"° * ^9 
- \ /••• 




<j 5 °y. 


«v ^->- © « * 

o* . • v-. V 

O j 

.'i o’ : -o/ •■ 

? >°-v . 

'♦_'**•■* f°° V '*•-< 




* A 0 ' ^ ’*•>’• A* °* • .T.• A 0 ‘ 

-*>* ‘ '* V .-^V’’ ‘ V*..... V "'’o* 6 ..... V'* 



o V 


© 

St ' ® 

o <0 * 

* Jk v ^ *'%J]\'C , sSS> » v v*. i 

A T ^ *•*»* A <r ^ 

* * * * - v*. ^ . *« v* 



■fc 0 < 


\ V ^ ^ -A • * ° 

«. v *!«©&<• V - 4 ?’ ,»i*^*. v 

A, * f_Sa li 08 & * At '•• «' 



c 



* * v -v. 


to o 

^ •. v #%v r «’ * 

^ . »* A 

# - °-> ^ ® «L # 4 

O JC 1 « -C^tv V 

•» a . » w *v* 



4 O 

*i ’ •<<* »° Jl.' 

r C\. • o 

v '\iAtf£* V*’*V° •■ 





•J' c>- 


aV*^. - 

* ^ • 


•<?> 


‘’o^ 



* f^VIP^L * y*^ • 

'Cji, ^ * » » * ,A* C5 „ , « A 


•w 


O o % *ywfs J- 

•?? ,W 5 v?V» -f, .« .' 

JvA #&//)). o V 







tt tSsyTW^is K. w 0 iP 7*. V \£/ * 4 

_ ^ <£> * ^ 

a **&&<&* _ ?s 

... % ••••• a° v •^- , 

.*, \/ .-M ^ ^ - 




R V •_ 

* jy o -a . A • A 

>T . i / * ., A» 







% ^ >o v '*b jA v «*•** "<P 

: ^cf* ?Smy- *c>y 

«. ^ ^ * 4 p VV 

- V * *JJw% , «0^ f t • o^, vv A V s . * , ^ - * A U 



% 

C$*p l 

* &? ci> i, 

« <A V ‘ 

.0 o, 'o 

4 > *Q 1 V ftV k » * * 3 ^. 

; <. % C° o 

*. •^o ? ■>■ 

<♦ &* «&■ m 

* A~ — « 




® 7 ’> s 

S <r* r 

%^ynjrt .a v a * 

aV” w ^ 4 * • * # ^ • * * A ^ ♦, 

A * c _iisvA#* ^ >0^ - * *■ ' * •* ^O A' c o * a ^ 

w r - “ % ^ S* <P_ 


& 



* Tj 


o o 




V 


w 



** Vv A? * 
" * 


* v*V 

* <fi ^J% ° W'WVVff * A y,r !ji a* 

’ * o> oX Js&W 1 * xv V*v « 

0 V 6®*°-* <K 




: V 
; 



^ s,,* 1 aT 

4 V < 4 * 

t'*-. *> v' .*v^* o. 

• W ;Jfe; V* 

' * -sir jjs\>y« iV V- 

1 (p- • 6 ^ 4 ^ ^ 

fc -• . Jf 



® « » 


4_v ^ *.v|Nv ^ ^ . 

j» O '...* a <. *~7T*' 0 - 

> - •> 1 ■ 4 *0 *V &«>“•- <*> rt V l I 4 *3* 

' ♦ O IT** *%-£<V #■ «P /-u l* '-'a .-X 

•£sMt3£- ’’bv*' ^SMk? 5 *” Xki»<' «' 


4> »•;.. ' 



•••■ .A <» *.’771'**.6^ ^o 
°o / ^ .o* ■• v -*« 

«»>_a •«^V* "^o? ; 



, ^ <?* *. 

% " A®*,..., % *** A 

\ ** *♦ ‘S^'- "V / 

, V* v vrV* 

: vOTsv j>\ 

\ 4V 4 . *0- <?* 

a * 


r \5 '*.** A <v ,6 V o*. <A <, 

**•*,♦ ^o V& 6 ° * 9 4 <£. (V • 1 f • 4 o 4 .^ o 0 " 9 * * 


0 .4 


•« 

0 /TV 


*. ^,-« C * 


*. o't. 







An Important European Mission 


to investigate 

American Immigration Conditions 

and 

John Quincy Adams’ Relation thereto 

( 1817 — 1818 ) 


By 


MAX J. KOHLER, A. M. LL. B. 



Reprinted from Deutsch-Amerikanische Geschichtsblatter, 
Jahrbuch der Deutsch-Amerikanischen Historischen 
Gesellschaft von Illinois—Jahrgang 1917 
(Vol. XVII.) 



IMMIGRATION 

1817-1818 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILL. 


Agents: 

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
LONDON AND EDINBURGH 

THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA 
TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO 

KARL W. HIERSEMANN 
LEIPZIG 

THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY 
NEW YORK 




An Important European Mission 


to investigate 


American Immigration Conditions 

and 

John Quincy Adams’ Relation thereto 

( 1817 — 1818 ) 


By 

/ 

MAX j'KOHLER, A. M. IX. B. 



Reprinted from Deutsch-Amerikanische Geschichtsblatter, 
Jahrbuch der Deutsch-Amerikanischen Historischen 
Gesellschaft von Illinois—Jahrgang 1917 
(Vol. XVII.) 


ZT e 


* 1 ^ 

1 L * 






z 


K \ V\<- 7 


Copyright 1918 

GERMAN-AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 
OF ILLINOIS 


All Rights Reserved 


Published May 1919 


Gift 

Author 

JUL * 





AN IMPORTANT EUROPEAN MISSION TO INVESTI¬ 
GATE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION CONDITIONS 
AND JOHN QUINCY ADAMS’ RELATIONS 
THERETO (1817-1818). 

By Max J. Kohi^r, A.M., EE.B. 

While America has sent numerous commissions and com¬ 
missioners to Europe to study immigration conditions during 
the past few decades, the fact has almost wholly escaped atten¬ 
tion that there was an official European mission to the United 
States for this purpose as early as 1817, which, in fact, resulted 
in an interesting and valuable report of considerable historical 
service on methods of transportation of the period and the 
condition of immigrants here, particularly German immigrants. 
It is probable that this mission was one of the important fac¬ 
tors, leading to the passage of remedial laws in the United 
States in 1818 and 1819, and which also resulted in measures 
abroad for removal of many abuses, and that these American 
and European influences were of value in putting an end about 
1819 to the “Redemptioner” system, with the evils of which 
this mission largely concerned itself. The mission was en¬ 
trusted to Moritz von Fiirstenwarther by his kinsman, Baron 
von Gagern, who had been prime-minister of the Nether¬ 
lands and an influential delegate to the Congress of Vienna 
shortly before, and was a member of the Diet of the Ger¬ 
man Confederation, as representative of the Dutch state of 
Luxemburg, at the time that he gave the detailed instructions 
involved, to von Fiirstenwarther, to study and report on 
American immigration conditions. Von Gagern caused this 
report, with a copy of his instructions and comments, to be 
printed under the title Der Deutsche in Nord-Amerika (Stutt¬ 
gart und Tubingen, 1818, 124 pp.), but the booklet has become 
very rare, (though copies are to be found in the “Library of 
Congress,” and in the “New York Public Library”). It was 
reviewed by Edward Everett in the “North American Review ” 
in 1820 (Vol. 11, p. 1), in an article, the authorship of which 
was subsequently avowed. Von Gagern caused action upon 
it to be taken by the German “Bundestag” in 1819, and also 
secured remedial measures to be adopted by the Netherlands, 


— 5 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


and the prosecution there of persons guilty of some of the 
evils exposed. Von Fiirstenwarther’s work throws valuable 
light upon immigration to America just before the fall of the 
Redemptioner system, and also upon the condition of immi¬ 
grants here at a period when little systematic information was 
collected. 

In Baron von Gagern’s political autobiography, entitled 
“Mein Antheil an der Politik” (Vol. Ill Der Bundestag; Stutt¬ 
gart and Tubingen 1830, pp. 151-3), he furnishes some in¬ 
formation about Moritz von Fiirstenwarther and his family, 
which is all the more useful, as the report gives very little such, 
not having been prepared with a view to publication. Von 
Fiirstenwarther belonged to a Bavarian noble family, impover¬ 
ished by the French Revolution, and his mother was a sister 
of von Gagern’s mother. He studied at the University of Jena, 
served as a captain of grenadiers during the Napoleonic wars 
in Spain, and was planning to fight for the revolutionists in 
South America, when his kinsman and patron, von Gagern, 
gave him the commission to investigate American immigra¬ 
tion, which von Gagern correctly says he did with good judg¬ 
ment. He settled in America and died early. 

Von Gagern (Id. p. 145) calls attention to the important 
circumstance,—which is often overlooked in considering the 
heavy increase in immigration to the United States during 
several years antedating September 30, 1819, the beginning of 
our federal immigration statistics,—that a severe famine in 
1816 and 1817 abroad, following closely upon the termination 
of the Napoleonic wars, greatly augmented this migration. It 
was then, accordingly, much greater than it had been during 
the European war period and our War of 1812, and decreased 
considerably (especially German immigration), when our 
federal statistics begin. 1 

1 Niles Register of this period, (Vols. XI, 32, 127; XII, 365; XIII, 
35, 79, 314; XIV, 336, 359, 365, 388, 400; XV, 9, 33; XVI, 298, 378; 
XVII, 63, 111; XVIII, 388), indicates that immigration to the United 
States during the. first seventeen years of the Nineteenth Century 
averaged 10,000 per year and was about 30,000 during the years 1817, 
1818 and 1819, and in one week in September, 1819 not less than 2,500 
and perhaps as many as 3,000 arrived, and it amounted to about 20,000 
aliens arriving at the Port of New York, besides about 16,000 returning 


— 6 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


Von Gagern gives outlines of the conditions which induced 
inhabitants of Wiirtemberg, Swabia and the Palatinate in par¬ 
ticular to emigrate at this period. We must not overlook, how¬ 
ever, the radical change of attitude of German and other states 
toward emigration, effected by the treaty of Paris, which 

Americans, between December, 1818 and December, 1819, confirming 
von Gagern’s statements. S. C. Johnson’s valuable A History of Emi¬ 
gration from the United Kingdom to North America (p. 344), gives us 
official figures for British emigration beginning 1815, and distinguished 
between those sailing for British North America and the United States, 
thus carrying statistics of immigration via England back several years 
earlier than our American official figures. According to Johnson, 
during the four years from 1816 to 1819 there sailed from Great 
Britain to the United States 42,405 emigrants and 51,837 more to 
British North America. Attention should, however, be directed to 
the fact that a very large fraction of the emigrants bound for Can¬ 
ada really were destined to the United States, British laws in force 
till 1824, as Johnson points out (p. 180), forbidding, under heavy 
penalties, inducing artificers in British manufactures to go into foreign 
parts; a statement confirmed by Niles’ Register, which estimates the 
number destined to the, United States approximately as half those sail¬ 
ing for Canada, most coming over via the St. Lawrence River (Vol. 
XIV, pp. 380-2; XVII, 111), though in Niles the exact reason for this 
course is not mentioned. Moreover, at this period, the fare, from Eng¬ 
land to Canada was only about one-half that to the United States. 
Johnson also points out (p. 101-3) that the British figures are incom¬ 
plete, because of the large, number of surreptitious sailings at this 
period. Kapp’s estimates for the first nineteen years of the Nineteenth 
Century (Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the 
State of New York, p. 12) are thus shown to have been far too low. 
See also my papers “Some Aspects of the Immigration Problem” (Am. 
Econ. Review, Vol. IV, No. 1, March 1914) reviewing some of these 
estimates and approving Prof. Ripley’s adoption of George Bancroft’s 
statement that already at the time of our Revolutionary War “One- 
fifth of the population could not speak English, and that one-half at 
least was not Anglo-Saxon by descent,” and particularly the figures of 
our Census Bureau in A Century of Population Growth, as criticized 
by Prof. A. B. Faust in his German Element in the U. S. (I, 280-5) 
with the co-operation of Prof. Walter F. Willcox. On the other hand, 
Kapp (Id. p. 12) calls attention to the fact, significant today, that “the 
difficulty experienced in disposing of property at satisfactory prices, 
prevented many from leaving the Old World immediately after the 
close of the Napoleonic Wars,” until the outbreak of this great famine. 
It should be noted that after 1819 immigration became so reduced that 
the Immigration Commission’s Report (Vol. Ill, pp. 14-15) shows that 
during the year ending September 30, 1820, the total alien European 
immigration was only 7691, including only 968 from Germany, and these 
figures were larger than for the following few years. The circum¬ 
stance is also commonly overlooked, set forth by Johnson (pp. 16, 356) 
that a British Commission in 1826 reported in favor of encouraging 
British and Irish emigration, because of an excess in the laboring popu¬ 
lation at home, following which immigration to America was promoted 
there both privately and officially. 


— 7 — 



IMMIGRATION 1817—ISIS 


authorized departure of inhabitants within a period of six 
years from territory ceded by France at the end of the Na¬ 
poleonic wars, and the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna in 
1815, in constituting the German Confederation, which pro¬ 
vided for free emigration from one German State into others. 
Until then, in general, with various exceptions, except in the 
cases of dissenters and Jews, emigration and inducing emigra¬ 
tion from German states were forbidden under criminal penalty 
and the property of the immigrant was forfeited. 1 Of course, 
given a right to emigrate, the fatherland was no longer vitally 
interested in the question into which land its former subject was 
going. Von Gagern (Mein Antheil, etc. Ill, pp. 146-8) brought 
up the subject of emigration at the German Bundestag, in May, 
1817 at the direction of his Government. This was to give 
notice of the edict promulgated by the Netherlands that, in 
view of the ever-increasing number of Swiss and Germans, 
arriving in the Netherlands en route to America, and the dis¬ 
turbances of the public peace resulting from their intermediate 
sojourn there without adequate means of sustenance, the Dutch 
Government would permit emigrants to America after June 
15th to enter the Netherlands only en route to America, if 
residents of the Nedterlands furnished adequate security for 
payment of the expenses accruing between such arrival and 
departure, notification of which von Gagern was requested to 
have made. The latter at this time also referred to the in¬ 
vestigation of American immigration conditions, which he had 
had instituted and expected to submit to his sovereign. (Pro- 
tokolle der deutschen Bundesversammlung, III, pp. 130-2.) 
Again, on June 12th, 1817, he called the Diet’s attention to the 
difficulties arising from the return of immigrants from America 

1 Much light on emigration conditions in the chief German States 
from early times on, is thrown by the valuable work, edited by E. von 
Phillipovich, entitled A usvc ancle rung und Auswanderungspolitik in 
Deutschland (Schriften des Vereins fiir Socialpolitik, No. 52; 1892, pp. 
479). Of course, this author was unfamiliar with the enormous supply 
of manuscript material since rendered accessible by Prof. Learned’s 
valuable Guide to the Manuscript Material Relating to American His¬ 
tory in German State Archives. On the other hand, it is to be regretted 
that Prof. Learned does not cite von Phillipovich’s work, supplementing 
so valuably the manuscript material by reference to German printed 
matter. 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


and the restrictions upon their re-entry into the countries from 
which they had migrated. The official protocol shows that 
there was a general discussion of the police regulations of the 
various states regarding emigrating and returning persons, 
and the conclusion was arrived at that the subject be called to 
the attention of the several States for action by them (Id., pp. 
201-3; Mein Anteil, pp. 148-159). 

In his instructions to von Fiirstenwarther, von Gagern 
mentions the fact that the Swiss Government had instructed 
its consul at Amsterdam to co-operate in this investigation, and 
von Fiirstenwarther reports that the Swiss consul there, Planta, 
rendered him valuable assistance. Niles’ Register, (Vol. 12, p. 
365), shows that soon thereafter the Swiss Canton of Basle 
issued an order to refuse passports to America to any one not 
possessing 200 florins, doubtless figured as requisite to main¬ 
tain him until arrival in America, 1 and von Fiirstenwarther 
contrasts the kindness of the Swiss government to its emigrat¬ 
ing subjects with that of various German states, and he might 
have pointed out that some of the German states were among 
the chief despoilers of their unfortunate emigrating subjects, 
levying exportation taxes of about 10 per cent, of all the emi¬ 
grant’s possessions upon them. 

After von Gagern had ceased to be a member of the Ger¬ 
man Diet, he caused a copy of von Fiirstenwarther’s printed 
report and of the letter from John Quincy Adams hereinafter 
referred to, to be submitted to the German Diet, in 1819 . The 
documents were considered there (Mein Anteil , etc., III., pp. 
154-6), Protokolle, VIII., 148-150) at the instance of Bava¬ 
ria’s representative, Aretin, who summarized the report and 
pointed out that, even if emigration was not to be prohib¬ 
ited, it ought to be regulated, so as to mitigate its suffer¬ 
ings: “No Government could view, with equanimity, the 
impending misfortune of its former subjects, even if caused 
by their own recklessness. They were its children, even though 

1 Much light on these European regulations is thrown by Prof. 
Learned’s work, as also by the valuable companion work by Prof. 
Faust on the Swiss and Austrian Archives. A number of other Cantons 
besides Basle issued such regulations at this time, and.it is apparent 
that von Gagern and Swiss officials co-operated in this investigation. 


— 9 - 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


erring children. Even countries whose subjects were not in¬ 
volved, were concerned, because, besides the dictates of human¬ 
ity, the matter of national honor was involved.” It was ac¬ 
cordingly resolved that the printed report in question be ac¬ 
cepted as containing valuable material for the amelioration of 
the condition of German immigrants to America, and that 
the editor and von Fiirstenwarther be accorded the Diet’s 
cordial thanks for their efforts. It was agreed that the sub¬ 
ject matter be commended to the careful consideration of the 
various Governments, and that it be respectfully left to them 
to initiate appropriate methods for dealing with it, as private 
agencies cannot be expected to do so, and are unable completely 
to meet it. Von Phillipovich’s and Prof. Eearned’s works in¬ 
dicate that from this time on, German supervision of emigra¬ 
tion in fact became active and systematic. German emigration 
records date chiefly from this period. It is probable that the 
restrictions placed at this time by Holland upon this traffic 
underly Prof. Thomas W. Page’s statement, in one of his in¬ 
teresting series of papers on the history of immigration, which 
he has been contributing to the Journal of Political Economy 
(Vol. 19, p. 732, on Transportation of Immigrants and Recep¬ 
tion Arrangements in the Nineteenth Century), that the rigor 
of her regulations substantially eliminated Dutch ports from 
this traffic, a statement certainly not true of the period before 
1819. 

Contemporary manuscript material obviously confirms von 
Gagern and von Fiirstenwarther’s statements that Holland’s 
ports were at this period the chief ones for transit to America. 
Compare the following items from Prof. Learned’s work (p. 
49) : “Papers relating to emigration in general and to the 
privilege of emigrating within six years (the ‘sexennium’ pro¬ 
vided by the Peace of Paris) from all the provinces ceded by 
France, particularly Schuckmann’s letter to the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs, December 10, 1816 and the reply.” 

“Correspondence relating to the great emigration during 
the Sexennium; some 3,000 wishing to go from Trier alone. 
* * * Communication of Schultheis and Dr. Ebermaier to 

the Oberprasident Graf von Solms, stating that emigration 


— 10 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


from Wiirttemberg, Switzerland and bordering French depart¬ 
ments, to Holland, has so increased in the last six weeks, that 
several thousand have passed down the Rhine and some 80,- 
000 intend to go to America; Laubach, May 9, 1817.” 

“More correspondence relating to emigration, such as let¬ 
ters of June 6th and 22nd, 1817; and other papers relating to 
the inspection of passes, from which we learn incidentally that 
the emigrants from South Germany and Switzerland shipped 
almost exclusively down the Rhine.” 

Curiously enough, Prof. Learned seems to have found no 
trace of von Gagern and von Fiirstenwarther’s mission, and 
von Gagern’s name does not appear in his “Guide” at all, while 
von Fiirstenwarther is referred to only in connection with a 
recommendation for his appointment, about 1818, as diplomatic 
agent of the Hanse towns to the United States (p. 241). This 
is probably due to the fact that his “Guide” seems to include 
few, if any, papers of the German Confederation of this date 
(compare pp. 312, 133), while of course the Dutch Archives 
were left for treatment elsewhere. The letter from John 
Quincy Adams of June 4, 1819 to von Fiirstenwarther, re¬ 
ferred to hereinafter, is, however, unmistakably identifiable, 
despite its dating as “June 14th, 1819” in the “Guide” (p. 50), 
though the archives Prof. Learned examined contain merely 
an “extract” of this document, apparently not bearing the 
addressee’s name. In his interesting Introduction (p. 8) Prof. 
Learned, however, refers to some subsequent measures of 
similar purpose: “So great became the interest in the New 
World, that it seemed impossible to check the emigration. The 
next question was, how to regulate the emigration of German 
subjects and to protect them against ill-treatment and fraud 
on the part of colonizing and shipping agents. In one notable 
instance, we find a German prince, Bernhard, duke of Saxe- 
Weimar-Eisenach, visiting the New World to see it with his 
own eyes, in the years 1825-6. Two years before, in 1823, we 
find documents relating to the organization of the “American 
Co., of the Elbe.” 

To return to von Fiirstenwarther’s reports, which were in 
the shape of letters which von Gagern printed without alter- 


— 11 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


ation—prefixing an introduction and a copy of his comprehen¬ 
sive instructions, bearing the Dutch official seal (pp. 3-10), to 
study German and Swiss immigration to America, and methods 
to mitigate its hardships, with some concluding observations— 
Furstenwarther left Frankfurt-on-the-Main on June 17th, 
1817, en route to the United States, with letters of introduction 
to various persons *i Europe and America. He wrote from 
Amsterdam on July 3rd, 1817 that the misery of most of the 
immigrants there was greater, and their condition more help¬ 
less and unprepared, than he had even imagined, and recom¬ 
mended regulation in Europe to ameliorate matters, if emigra¬ 
tion was not to be wholly forbidden. He remarks that the 
Dutch cities were overwhelmed by masses emigrating to Amer¬ 
ica, and called attention to the fact that delays in sailing re¬ 
sulted in consuming the means of those that had brought any 
money with them, and that they became the victims of fraud, 
disorder and lack of leadership, advice, assistance and super¬ 
vision, while there was a shocking barter in human life when¬ 
ever persons were without means. Inferior agencies engaged 
in this traffic, some of which he named, and the sudden flood 
of immigration caused'the utilization of all sorts of vessels, 
that were unadapted for the traffic. For example, he men¬ 
tions the fact that delay in the sailing of the ship Nene Seelust 
carrying several hundred Swiss to America, resulted in cut¬ 
ting down rations even before sailing, while waiting for more 
human freight. He calls attention to the interesting circum¬ 
stance that subjects of Wurtemberg had expressly to surrender 
their rights of citizenship before emigrating from their country, 
and pay an emigration tax, which the Swiss and Alsatians (pp. 
11-13) did not have to do. A sample copy of the contracts of 
transportation employed, is copied by him, and it appears that 
the fare for adults, going to the United States, when paid in 
Amsterdam, was then 170 florins, children over 13 being 
treated as adults, and those under four were carried free, while 
those between 4 and 13 paid half rates. More was charged, 
when the fare was paid in America, and ten days’ time to pay 
after landing was afforded. In case of death after half the 
voyage was over, the passenger’s family was obliged to pay the 


— 12 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


passage-money, but if death occurred earlier, the loss fell on 
the vessel. On arrival in America, the redemptioners, i. e., 
persons to be redeemed from servitude by payment of the fare, 
were not to be permitted to leave the vessel without the cap¬ 
tain’s consent. The contract contained specifications of the 
food to be furnished each day, but breaches of the contract 
were often complained of before sailing even. A vessel was 
referred to, the Seeflug, bound to America, which had been 
waiting to sail for five weeks; 400 Wurtembergers were aboard, 
and meantime 28 had died, including 25 infants (pp. 13-16). 
A number of other and even more shocking cases of heavy 
losses by death aboard ship are collated by him. 

Von Fiirstenwarther sailed for New York on the brig 
“Ohio”, and his next letter was dated Philadelphia, October 
28, 1817, and referred to the method pursued in disposing of 
the redemptioners. The captain advertised for prospective 
employers of the redemptioners, who were thereupon sold or 
leased for terms of years, upon payment by them of the pass¬ 
age money. Commonly, he observes, members of the Ger¬ 
man Society of Philadelphia come on board right after arrival. 
He mentions the fact that five vessels were then anchored off 
Philadelphia with 500 Redemptioners aboard, who had been 
waiting several weeks to be disposed of, and that on another 
vessel, out of 300 immigrants 70 had died before embarkation. 
It is noted that arrivals from Great Britain, especially Eng¬ 
land, had increased greatly during the past two years. 1 

1 See Seidensticker’s Geschichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft von 
Pennsylvania (1764-1876), Eickhoff’s In der Neuen Heimath, the Sup¬ 
plement of which is a history of the German Society of New York, 
and the annual Reports of the Society for the History of Germans in 
Maryland, particularly No. 2, Hennighausen’s History of the German 
Society of Maryland and Lohr’s Das Dcutsch Amerikancrtum vor ioo 
Jahren, in Vol. 14 of the Yearbook of the German American Historical 
Society of Illinois, for contemporary statements from their records; 
also Kapp’s Geschichte der Deutschen im Siaate New York; Prof. 
Faust’s work, supra; Deffenderffer’s German Immigration into Penn¬ 
sylvania through the Port of Philadelphia, Vol. II The Redemptioners; 
S. H. Cobb’s The Palatine or German Immigration to New York and 
Pennsylvania, and The Story of the Palatines, Geiser’s Redemptioners 
and Indented Servants in the Colony and Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
vania; Ballagh’s White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia; Byrd: 
Slavery and Indentured Servants in Am. Hist. Review I, 88; Kuhns’ 
German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania; Benjamin 


— 13 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


In a letter written in December, 1817, he refers to a con¬ 
sideration of immigration in an interview he had just had with 
John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State. His narrative 
of this interview (pp. 28-9) is interesting, and there is no 
reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of his account there¬ 
of, despite Edward Everett’s comments regarding it. In fact, 
the letter, hereinafter printed, written to von Furstenwarther 
by Adams was composed after Adams had carefully read the 
printed work, and he does not in any way impugn its accuracy. 
Von Furstenwarther says: 

“I found him (Adams) extremely courteous and friendly toward 
myself. He listened to me at first with great attention, and later inter¬ 
rupted me frequently in my remarks. I gave him your pamphlet. On 
my second visit he asked me if I had any instructions; I deemed 
myself in duty bound to answer this truthfully, and declared that I 
was ready to exhibit them to him. What he answered was in sub¬ 
stance as follows: ‘The Government until now had been of the opinion 
that the European States, and particularly the German governments, did 
not like to see emigration going on, and for political reasons, in order 
not to disturb friendly relations, had not directly encouraged the same, 
or had sought to avoid the appearance of seeming to encourage the 
same. If, however, one were certain that the German princes would 

Rush’s Account of the Manners of the German Inhabitants of Penn¬ 
sylvania and Prof Learned’s works, to mention some of the most help¬ 
ful studies of early German immigration to the United States. Mr. 
L. P. Hennighausen’s paper on The Redemptioners and the German 
Society of Maryland in the above cited report of the Society for the 
History of Germans in Maryland, reproduces contemporary advertise¬ 
ments for the sale or hire of German redemptioners, as also an offer 
of a $50 reward for an absconding redemptioner. It also reproduces 
an Act of Maryland of February 16, 1818, “relative to German and 
Swiss Redemptioners” and providing for their protection, and it is 
substantially correct to say that aid to the immigrants was then afforded 
almost exclusively by such German Immigrant Aid Societies, the Ger¬ 
man societies being more earnest and influential than the others at this 
period. The Pennsylvania German Society was the parent society, 
having been founded in 1764, the bulk of the German immigration 
being bound for Philadelphia at this period. It secured the enactment 
of a law to protect the immigrants in 1765 and another more stringent 
one in 1818. The Maryland Society secured enactment of a similar 
Maryland law, and the New York Society also from time to time 
secured suitable N. Y. legislation. There seems to be no doubt that 
von Furstenwarther and the circumstance of his mission stimulated 
German activity after his arrival here in the direction of greater pro¬ 
tection for the immigrants in the various cities specified, and as will 
be further noted presently, the Pennsylvania and Maryland laws of 
1818 and the Federal Law of 1819 were agitated for largely at his 
instigation. 


— 14* — 



IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


not place obstacles in the way of immigration, one might be more dis¬ 
posed to co-operate with them, but, he added, more on account of 
sympathy for the immigrants themselves. For, be it principle and con¬ 
viction or national vanity, people have, or affect in general in America, 
a great indifference to foreign immigration, and seem to be of the 
opinion that the population of the United States would increase enough 
without the same.” 

The Treaties of Paris and Vienna had been signed sub¬ 
sequent to John Quincy Adams' return to the United States 
from the Prussian mission at the beginning of Jefferson’s ad¬ 
ministration, and he was probably not familiar with the change 
of attitude following those treaties. 

Von Fiirstenwarther reported that out of 4,000 persons 
who had arrived at Philadelphia on 17 vessels between July 
and December, 1817, 1,700 had been bound out for their pass¬ 
age money; of these, two-thirds remained in Pennsylvania, the 
remainder going chiefly to Ohio. Dutch ships were principally 
engaged in carrying immigrants to America at this time, though 
occasionally also American, Swedish, Russian and English ves¬ 
sels ; they were inferior ships, the American being the best. 
Under a Pennsylvania local law, the captains were obliged to 
provide for the passengers aboard ship and there were other 
protecting provisions. The term of service varied between two 
and four years, depending on the circumstances, and children 
of tender years went free with the parent. The Pennsylvania 
protective law was good, but is not fully observed, particularly 
not by foreign vessels. Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore 
are the chief ports for the traffic. He mentioned the interest¬ 
ing fact, the significance of which has been overlooked, that 
the New York statute requiring vessels to give bond for each 
immigrant brought over, against his becoming a public charge 
(Rev. Stat. of N. Y. of 1813, Vol. II, p. 440), led to the prefer¬ 
ence of Philadelphia over New York by shipowners, while on 
the other hand, immigrants going to New York were of a 
better class. Von Furstenwarther advised emigrants against 
going to Baltimore, which had no protective laws, and where 
familiarity with negro slavery begot worse treatment of the 1 
redemptioners, who in the South were described as “Dutch or 
White Slaves.” He made some interesting observations about 


— 15 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


the Redemptioner system, which, he points out, had many of 
the aspects and evils of slavery, while, on the other hand, it 
had the advantage of compelling the immigrants, during their 
servitude, to learn the language, customs, trades and pursuits 
of the locality, and to acquire local information, and they were 
then ready to become independent and succeed. The treatmen* 
of the redemptioners in Pennsylvania and the Western states, 
where there was no negro slavery, was good. Young people 
between 14 and 20 years old were in most demand. The history 
of German immigration to Pennsylvania is outlined by him, 
and he reports that it had increased since the American Revolu¬ 
tion, and particularly since the European wars, and that half 
of the population of Pennsylvania is German or of German 
descent. He praises the then pending effort at colonization in 
the Illinois territory by the Irish society, which had in vain 
petitioned Congress for sale of lands on credit, and reviews 
various German, Swiss and French colonies in America, 
recently formed, and discusses the opportunities to secure land 
free or at low prices, and the land-office and its branches. 

It is interesting to note the statement that the United 
States had reached a point in their national development when 
they were independent of immigration, and that the population 
doubled itself every twenty years. National vanity gave rise 
to the general assertion that the United States could dispense 
with immigration, he says; nevertheless, the immigrants were 
always welcome, a lack of labor continues, and the country 
would sorely feel the consequence, if immigration were sudenly 
to cease. The abject condition of the German immigrants im¬ 
paired their opportunities, especially as regards those coming 
over in winter, and there was a general complaint regarding 
the looser moral standards of the immigrants of the last twenty 
to thirty years, which, he thought, might possibly be ascribed to 
the unhappy time of revolt and warfare, and the general de¬ 
terioration in European morals. 1 He reports that the Germans 

Uhe general disposition to locate the golden age behind us, is to be 
noted at a time just preceding this “twenty-to-thirty-year period,” too. 
In the report of Phineas Bond, British Consul at Philadelphia to his 
Foreign Office, he said in 1789 (Am. Hist. Ass’n Repts. 1896 I, p. 643) : 
“An almost total stop has been lately put to migration hither from the 


— 16 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


in America are in general personally esteemed, regardless of 
nationality or descent; and many are rich or well-to-do, and 
have distinguished themselves by their service to their fellow- 
citizens. Schneider (Snyder?), the last Governor of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, was of German descent, and offices and posts of dis¬ 
tinction are open to them. In general, the German resident is 
esteemed because of his industry, frugality, domesticity, hon¬ 
esty and his quiet disposition, and particularly as an agricul¬ 
turalist. Pennsylvania, he says, owes to him, her universally 
recognized pre-eminence over other States in the matter of an 
established agricultural system. * 1 “Germans are preferred over 
the Irish and the French immigrants; with the last-named, the 
Americans cannot become friendly, and they are not liked 
personally, though people sympathize with the fate and the 
principles of that nation.” 

Von Furstenwarther observes, that the German nation and 


Palatinate and other parts of Germany, so that the few who now come 
hither from that country get into Holland by stealth and embark at 
Amsterdam and Rotterdam, and these are a very ordinary sort of 
people.” In fact, German prohibitions and restrictions on emigration 
had existed in many sections for a long time. In his very interesting 
and useful article on “Auswanderung” with its valuable bibliography, 
v. Philippovich, writing in the Handworterbuch der Staatswisscnchaft, 
edited by Conrad, Elster, Lexis and Loening (3rd Ed. 1909, II, p. 263), 
enumerates restrictions upon German emigration, first by Hanover in 
1753, then by Brunswick, Mecklenberg-Schwerin and the free cities, 
and Emperor Joseph II’s complete prohibition of 1768, all of which 
were futile in view of the irresistable desire thus to escape oppression, 
even under a system of temporary servitude, which is said to have fur¬ 
nished America with half its population in colonial times. (See also 
fuller treatment in von Phillipovich’s above cited book, Moenckmeier’s 
Die deutsche iiberseeische Auswanderung (1912) and Prof. Faust’s 
article and note on Swiss emigration in the October, 1916, issue of the 
American Historical Review, besides his and Prof. Learned’s “Guides”). 

1 Compare Benjamin Rush’s contemporary tribute to the value of 
the Germans, particularly as agriculturists, written in 1789, and quoted 
with other works in my above-cited paper in the Am. Economic Review, 
Vol. IV. Prof. McMaster in his History of the U. S. (Vol. IV, p. 393) 
contrasts the German immigrant of this period to his advantage, with 
the Irish, and he calls (pp. 391-2) attention to the curious agitation 
which grew out of the action of the Postmaster General of the United 
States at this period, in calling upon all postmasters to report as to the 
state or country of their birth, and that of their clerks, which was de¬ 
scribed by many as an insult to the foreign-born and a fire brand of 
discrimination and discord. In Canandaigua, the newspaper refused to 
print the regulation, and the postmaster to obey it, and others followed 
suit, particularly in the West. 


— 17 — 



IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


name were not esteemed; that the United States, though a new 
people, by reason of national vanity, surpassing that of Europe, 
“look with contempt upon those from whom emanate the first 
germs of her culture, and that there is particularly lack of 
regard for German, perhaps because of German lack of unity. 
The people of the United States are accustomed to judge by 
the culture, character and appearance of the individuals they 
see on their shores, the masses of whom are not calculated to 
create a more favorable opinion. The number of cultured 
Germans who visited or settled here has always been small, 
and the inferior condition of the immigrants of the last few 
years, aggravates this.” He goes on to say that twenty or 
thirty years previously, the American or Englishman travelling 
in Pennsylvania, not conversant with German, had serious diffi¬ 
culties in making himself understood, but this had since greatly 
decreased, despite the increasing immigration, and during the 
past ten years the German language had declined in America, 
and there was a strong tendency toward English. The Germans 
residing in the U. S., themselves no longer preferred German, 
and even the German Society wanted to conduct its proceed¬ 
ings in English, though Pennsylvania still maintained nineteen 
German newspapers and there were two more in Ohio and 
Maryland, respectively. He comments on the general religious 
tolerance prevailing. He notes that attachment to Germany on 
the part of her former subjects is disappearing, and they be¬ 
come zealous democrats and peaceful citizens of the United 
States. He concludes that good opportunities still exist for 
the German immigrant, though not as favorable as before. On 
the other hand, he dilates upon the troubles and dangers of 
the trip and its many difficulties and set-backs, and particu¬ 
larly those arising from unfamiliarity with the land and the 
language, making success for the immigrants very doubtful, 
especially at that time, and as long as the draw-backs were not 
removed or mitigated. He points out, moreover, that Amer¬ 
ica’s advantages are generally exaggerated in Germany. He 
concludes, however, that there is still room and opportunity 
for millions of immigrants in the United States, especially for 
agriculturalists and handicraftsmen. He argues, that culture 


— 18 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


is missing in the U. S., and not dreamt of; instead of aes¬ 
thetic sense and ennobling elements, he encountered crass ma¬ 
terialism and sordidness, and complains that Americans did 
not know the spiritual freedom (Seelenfreiheit) of Europe, 
especially of Germany. As to these comments, more, anon, in 
connection with criticisms of his views by Edward Everett and 
John Quincy.Adams. 

As already remarked, von Fiirstenwarther stimulated and 
contributed towards the enactment of Pennsylvania and Mary¬ 
land local statutes for the protection of immigrants, and also 
towards the passage of the federal act of March 2, 1819, the 
first federal law regulating passenger transportation. The lat¬ 
ter deserves more particular attention here, and he refers to 
its pendency very early in the day. This law is generally re¬ 
regarded as having ended the redemptioner system, by reason 
of its limitation upon the number of passengers that might be 
carried on ocean-bound vessels, and its provisions for victual¬ 
ing and reporting, making the business as hitherto conducted, 
unprofitable. Seidensticker in his “Geschichte der Deutschen 
Gesellscheft von Pennsylvania ” (p. Ill), called attention to 
the fact that that Society on January 12th, 1818, appealed to 
Congressman Sergeant of Philadelphia to bring about ap¬ 
propriate federal legislation, and that Congressman McLane of 
Delaware introduced the bill which was enacted, as amended, 
on March 10,1818. Von Fiirstenwarther’s prior interview, about 
Dec. 1817, with John Qunincy Adams has already been referred 
to, and it should be remembered that the latter had had-occasion 
to familiarize himself with the earlier English Act of 1803, upon 
which the American statute was based, and to discuss its oper¬ 
ation with the British Foreign Office in 1816 and 1817 (J. Q. 
Adams’ Memoirs III, 305-7, 476-7; Johnson, supra, pp. 101-3). 
Moreover, William Wirt, the Attorney General of this adminis¬ 
tration, was a son of a Swiss immigrant, and a German mother. 
He resided in Baltimore, and subsequently started a colony for 
German immigrants in Florida, as Kennedy’s biography of him 
points out. Niles' Register, (Vol. 13, p. 373) reports that on 
January 20, 1818, on motion of Mr. Forsyth, the House Com¬ 
mittee on Commerce and Manufactures was instructed to in- 


— 19 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


vestigate the subject of limiting the number of passengers to 
be brought into the United States by American and foreign 
vessels, according to the tonnage of the vessels. On March 
10, 1818 Mr. McLane, of this Committee, reported a bill on the 
subject (Annals of Congress, Vol. 31, p. 1222), which, as 
amended, became a law in 1819. The only debate regarding 
it that has been preserved in the “Annals of Congress” is the 
statement concerning it made by Mr. Newton in the House of 
Representatives on December 16, 1818, (Id. Vol. 33, pp. 4141- 
5) as follows: 

“The bill to regulate passenger ships and vessels came next in 
order. 

“Mr. Newton explained the necessity of this bill and the nature of 
its provisions. The great object of it was, he said, to give to those 
who go and come in passenger vessels, a security of sufficient food and 
convenience. In consequence of the anxiety to emigrate from Europe 
to this country, the captains, sure of freight, were careless of taking 
the necessary quantity of provisions, or of restricting the number of 
passengers to the convenience which their ships afforded. To show 
how necessary such a bill as this had become, one or two facts would 
suffice. In the year 1817, five thousand persons had sailed for this 
country from Antwerp, etc., of whom one thousand died on the 
passage. In one instance a captain had sailed from a port on that 
coast with one thousand two hundred and sixty-seven passengers. On 
his voyage he put into the Texel, previous to doing which four hundred 
had died. After being on the passage to our shores, before the vessel 
arrived at Philadelphia, three hundred more had died. The remainder, 
when the vessel reached Newcastle, were in a very emaciated state from 
the want of water and food, from which many of them afterwards 
died. Many other cases might be stated, but these would suffice to 
show the absolute necessity of provision, such as those of this bill. 
The bill restricted the number of passengers to two for every five 
tons’ burden of the vessel. In Great Britain, formerly, but one had 
been allowed to every five tons; but now, one to every three tons. The 
committee had been of opinion that the scale of one to every two tons 
and a half would afford every necessary accomodation. With regard 
to the other sections of the bill, they were generally similar to those of 
the act respecting seamen, by which a captain is obliged to take on 
board a certain quantity of water and bread for each seaman employed. 

No objection being made to the bill, it was ordered to be en¬ 
grossed for a third reading.” 

But this federal law seems to have been frequently evaded, 
and doubts were then entertained as to its validity as applicable 


— 20 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 

to foreign vessels, so that the regulative measures abroad, 
above referred to, growing out of von Furstenwarther’s mis¬ 
sion, were of great importance, and doubtless largely account 
for the heavy decline in immigration for some years after the 
federal law was enacted. 

It is apparent that von Furstenwarther was by no means 
free from a “certain condescension” toward foreigners, which 
Lowell satirized at a later period, and that sarcastic comments 
regarding his utterances by Edward Everett in the review of 
his work, were not unjustified, Everett, however, in turn yield¬ 
ed to the temptation himself, and some of his criticisms were 
scarcely just. Everett refers to the exculpatory statement 
made by von Fiirstewarther himself in the second number of 
the Philadelphia Amerikanische Ansichten, that his letters 
were not intended for publication, and to the criticism of a 
New York paper, entitled Deutscher Freund, regarding our 
author’s aristocratic point of view. Edward Everett, just re¬ 
turned from a trip to Europe, which included a stay in Ger¬ 
many, particularly castigates our author for his comment about 
the supposed lack of aesthetic sense and of the “higher free¬ 
dom of the soul” in America, alleged to be present in Germany, 
and well says (p. 19) : 

“We apprehend that it is precisely those fine moral comforts which 
are wanting ‘in Europe, nay, we say it boldly, in Germany most of all.’ 
In some parts of Europe there is more wealth, in most there is more 
artificial refinement and more learning than in America; but in none is 
there much freedom, either of soul or body; most in England, but not 
enough there. The tyranny is of a different kind in different places. In 
one it is the disproportionate wealth of the aristocracy, as in England, 
and in one it is the unbalanced despotism of the government, as in 
Germany, but in all it is freedom, liberty, confidence, equality of rights, 
where there is equality of merit, which are wanted; a want which is 
poorly supplied by pictures and statues, by fleets and armies, nay, by 
fine poetry and prose; though these are excellent in their way.” 

Soon after his book was published, von Furstenwarther 
sent a copy to John Quincy Adams, with an appropriate letter 
of transmittal, and he appears to have inquired about the 
possibility of securing a federal appointment in the United 
States. Adams, in reply, addressed to him a very interesting 
letter regarding immigration to the United States (dealing of 


— 21 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


course with the immigrants antedating the revolution of 1848) 
which was printed repeatedly in contemporary newspapers 
thereafter, both here and abroad, and a long extract from it 
was added by von Gagern as an appendix to his work Mein 
Antheil an der Politik;” (III, pp. 251-6). It is unfortunately 
omitted from Mr. Worthington C. Ford’s edition of John 
Quincy Adams’ correspondence. Several early works on 
America in German, published both here and abroad, repeated 
the letter in part, and with unqualified approval of its contents. 
As garbled reports of the letter were being published, its 
exact text was printed in Niles’ Register, Vol 18, p. 157, on 
April 29th, 1820, and it is reprinted here from that periodical, 
with the explanatory note from that paper prefaced to it. 

In the phrase “The United States has never adopted any 
measure to encourage or invite emigration from any part of 
Europe,” in the letter from Adams to von Furstenwarther, we 
can recognize the hand of the citizen of New England, which 
section has never been as much inclined to welcome immi¬ 
grants, as other portions of our country, as also that of the 
Secretary of State, cautious to avoid embroiling us with coun¬ 
tries of Europe, by taking a course that might interfere with 
their own laws against emigration, which Adams had verbally 
discussed with von Furstenwarther. It is, however, doubtful, 
if this statement was correct when written, and it certainly 
became incorrect before long. Even previously, Jefferson had 
been elected President on a platform which set forth the since 
repeatedly-reiterated American doctrine of right of asylum 
for the persecuted, and opposition to the Alien and Sedition 
Eaws, and in his Presidential Message of 1801 he had em¬ 
ployed the classical phrases: “Shall we refuse the unhappy 
fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of 
the wilderness extended to our forefathers arriving in this 
land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this 
globe?” Still earlier, in the Declaration of Independence, one 
of our grievances against England there formulated, was her 
refusal to pass laws to encourage the immigration of foreign¬ 
ers, and in August, 1776, Congress had adopted a comprehen¬ 
sive report in favor of encouraging immigration. Subsequent 


— 22 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


to this letter, John Quincy Adams, in his Memoirs (VI, 224) 
himself records a conversation which he had with Henry Clay 
on December 2, 1823, in the course of which Clay said: 

“He (Clay) said he had thought of offering a resolution to declare 
this country an asylum for all fugitives from oppression, and to con¬ 
nect with it a proposal for modifying the naturalization law, to make 
it more easily attainable. The foreigners in New York are petitioning 
Congress to that effect, and Clay will turn his liberality towards them 
to account.” 

This was before Congress enacted the act of July 27, 1868, 
which became Sec. 1999 of our Revised Statutes, declaring 
that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right 
of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness * * * * the recog¬ 
nition of (which) principle this Government has freely re¬ 
ceived emigration from all nations and invested them with the 
rights of citizenship,” and which recites that declarations in¬ 
consistent therewith are “inconsistent with the fundamental 
principles of the Republic.” (See an account of the history 
leading up to this declaration, in Prof. John B. Moore’s essay 
“The Doctrine of Expatriation in his American Diplomacy, pp. 
168-199, especially pp. 181-8, and McMaster’s With the 
Fathers, pp. 87-106). Prof. Thomas W. Page even points out, 
in writing on “Causes of European Immigration to the United 
States” (Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 19, pp. 676-93), 
that our ministers abroad have been repeatedly instructed to 
endeavor to secure the removal of obstacles presented by 
foreign legislation, to immigration to our shores, and this was 
particularly noticeable in connection with the treaties with 
German states, negotiated by Henry Wheaton, by which Ger¬ 
man states repealed their taxes on emigrants, the so-called 
droit d’Auboine and droit de detraction, in exchange for con¬ 
cessions which we made to them, (Moore’s International Law 
Digest, 158; Lawrence’s sketch of Wheaton in the 6th Edition 
of Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, pp. 110-112, and 
the works by Prof. Learned and von Phillipovich above cited.) 
One-time Congressional efforts to encourage immigration are 
also considered by Prof. Page, and in the History of Immigra¬ 
tion Investigation and Legislation prefixed to the U. S. Senate 


— 23 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


Report on Immigration of February 22, 1893 (Senate Report 
No. 133 of the 52d Cong. 2nd Session, pp. 9-17) and Vol. 39 
of the reports of the Immigration Commission, entitled ‘'Im¬ 
migration Legislation.” See also utterances of English authori¬ 
ties on the same subject in Parliament, collated in a paper by 
the present writer on “The Immigration Problem and the Right 
of Asylum for the Persecuted,” reprinted in “Hearings before 
the House of Representatives’ Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization, 63 Cong., 2nd Session, December 11th and 
12th, 1913, pp. 199-210, and compare my paper “The Right 
of Asylum with Particular Reference to the Alien'” in the 
Am. Law Review, May-June, 1917. 

LETTER FROM JOHN QUINCY ADAMS 
TO MORITZ VON FUERSTENWAERTHER. 

(From Niles’ Register, April 29, 1820.) 

(The letter, of which the following is a copy, appears to have been 
published in a German translation at Augsburg; whence, by a re-trans¬ 
lation, it has appeared in some of the English gazettes, and from them 
been extracted into some of the newspapers in this country. In its 
double transformation it has suffered variations not supposed to be in¬ 
tentional, nor perhaps important, but which render the publication of 
it proper, as it was written. It has been incorrectly stated to be an 
answer in the name of the American government. It was indeed written 
by the Secretary of State, as it purports, in answer to an application 
from an individual and respectable foreigner, who had previously been 
employed by the baron de Gagern, to collect information concerning 
the German emigrants to the United States, and to endeavor to obtain 
encouragements and favors to them from his government. Upon that 
mission he had been particularly recommended to Mr. Adams, to whom 
a printed copy of his report to the Baron de Gagern had afterwards 
been transmitted. There are several allusions to the report, in this 
letter, which was an answer to one from Mr. Fiirstenwarther, intimat¬ 
ing a disposition to become himself an American citizen; but suggest¬ 
ing that he had offers of advantageous employment in his native 
country, and enquiring whether, in the event of his settling here, he 
could expect any official situation in the department of state, or any 
other under the government.) 

“Department of State, 

Washington, 4th June, 1819. 

Sir :— I had the honor of receiving your letter of the 22d April, 
enclosing one from your kinsman, the Baron de Gagern, and a copy of 
your printed report, which I hope and have no doubt will be useful to 


— 24 — 



IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


those of your countrymen in Germany, who may have entertained 
erroneous ideas, with regard to the results of emigration from Europe 
to this country. 

It was explicitly stated to you, and your report has taken just 
notice of the statement, that the government of the United States has 
never adopted any measure to encourage or invite emigrants from any 
part of Europe. It has never held out any incitements to induce the 
subjects of any other sovereign to abandon their own country, to be¬ 
come inhabitants of this. From motives of humanity it has occasionally 
furnished facilities to emigrants who, having arrived here with views 
of forming settlements, have specially needed such assistance to carry 
them into effect. Neither the general government of the union, nor 
those of the individual states, are ignorant or unobservant of the addi¬ 
tional strength and wealth, which accrues to the nation, by the accession 
of a mass of healthy, industrious, and frugal laborers, nor are they in 
any manner insensible to the great benefits which this country has 
derived, and continues to derive, from the influx of such adoptive 
children from Germany. But there is one principle which pervades all 
the institutions of this country, and which must always operate as an 
obstacle to the granting of favors to new comers. This is a land, not 
of privileges, but of equal rights. Privileges are granted by European 
sovereigns to particular classes of individuals, for purposes of general 
policy; but the general impression here is that privileges granted to 
one denomination of people, can very seldom be discriminated from 
erosions of the rights of others. Emigrants from Germany, therefore, 
or from elsewhere, coming here, are not to expect favors from the 
governments. They are to expect, if they choose to become citizens, 
equal rights with those of the natives of the country. They are to 
expect, if affluent, to possess the means of making their property pro¬ 
ductive, with moderation, and with safety;—if indigent, but industrious, 
honest and frugal, the means of obtaining easy and comfortable sub¬ 
sistence for themselves and their families. They come to a life of 
independence, but to a life of labor—and, if they cannot accomodate 
themselves to the character, moral, political, and physical, of this coun¬ 
try, with all its compensating balances of good and evil, the Atlantic 
is always open to them, to return to the land of their nativity and their 
fathers. To one thing they must make up their minds, or, they*will be 
disappointed in every expectation of happiness as Americans. They 
must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look 
forward to their posterity, rather than backward to their ancestors;— 
they must be sure that whatever their own feelings may be, those of 
their children will cling to the prejudices of this country, and will par-, 
take of that proud spirit, not unmingled with disdain, which you have 
observed is remarkable in the general character of this people, and as 
perhaps belonging peculiarly to those of German descent, born in this 


— 25 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


country. That feeling of superiority over other nations which you 
have noticed, and which has been so offensive to other strangers, who 
have visited these shores, arises from the consciousness of every 
individual that, as a member of society, no man in the country is above 
him; and, exulting in this sentiment, he looks down upon those nations 
where the mass of the people feel themselves the inferiors of privileged 
classes, and where men are high or low, according to the accidents of 
their birth. But hence it is that no government in the world possesses 
so few means of bestowing favors, as the government of the United 
States. The governments are the servants of the people, and are so 
considered by the people, who place and displace them at their pleasure. 
They are chosen to manage for short periods the common concerns, 
and when they cease to give satisfaction, they cease to be employed. 
If the powers, however, of the government to do good are restricted, 
those of doing harm are still more limited. The dependence, in affairs 
of government, is the reverse of the practice in Europe; instead of 
the people depending upon their rulers, the rulers, as such, are always 
dependent upon the good will of the people. 

We understand perfectly, that of the multitude of foreigners who 
yearly flock to our shores, to take up here their abode, none come 
from affection or regard to a land to which they are total strangers, 
and with the very language of which, those of them who are Germans 
are generally unacquainted. We know that they come with views, not 
to our benefit, but to their own—not to promote our welfare, but to 
better their own condition. We expect therefore very few, if any, 
transplanted countrymen from classes of people who enjoy happiness, 
ease, or even comfort, in their native climes. The happy and contented 
remain at home, and it requires an impulse, at least as keen as that 
of urgent want, to drive a man from the soil of his nativity and the 
land of his father’s sepulchres. Of the very few emigrants of more 
fortunate classes, who ever make the attempt of settling in this country, 
a principal proportion sicken at the strangeness of our manners, and 
after a residence, more or less protracted, return to the countries 
whence they came. There are, doubtless, exceptions, and among the 
most opulent and the most distinguished of our citizens, we are happy 
to number individuals who might have enjoyed or acquired wealth 
and consideration, without resorting to a new country and another 
hemisphere. We should take great satisfaction in finding you included 
in this number, if it should suit your own inclinations, and the pros¬ 
pects of your future life, upon your calculations of your own interests. 
I regret that it is not in my power to add the inducement which you 
might perceive in the situation of an officer under the government. All 
the places in the department to which I belong, allowed by the laws, 
are filled, nor is there a prospect of an early vancancy in any of them. 
Whenever such vacancies occur, the applications from natives of the 


26 — 


IMMIGRATION 1817—1818 


country to fill them, are far more numerous than the offices, and the 
recommendations in behalf of the candidates so strong and so earnest, 
that it would seldom be possible, if it would ever be just, to give a 
preference over them to foreigners. Although, therefore, it would 
give me a sincere pleasure to consider you as one of our future and 
permanent fellow citizens, I should not do either an act of kindness or 
of justice to you, in dissuading you from the offers of employment 
and of honorable services, to which you are called in your native coun¬ 
try. With the sincerest wish that you may find them equal and 
superior to every expectation of advantage that you have formed, or 
can indulge, in looking to them, 

I have the honor to be, sir, your very obedient and humble servant, 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 





— 27 — 













































. 




















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* a 



% o' 






4ur ft * * A* * * * ^ 4 >■' - # 

* %/ .<Kttt*. \//M V^\4viCv% a 


J ? 3 ~'$Wi 5 £%* ^ r %- ° 2 WMW* fr ’% m> a^'V 

ft 0 " • • *0 a& . * * * . *£. o * «„ *fc* ,&> . , , 

* ’^sxOATTV* ^ 4.S * dr^%u * v v • c'vS^Vv-a.* ^7 j ^ 

> •» «a /ijh ^ * *P v >6 ft ^^\vV|! la* ... A?* * JpiUA^St. 






A' 

v^ v 


S vf* 




,VA 



a *l<b 


■^b K 


O, 

o^'W’ *. 

« * •*’ f V 11 v-yLv-* 

: V W* ^ - 1 

*’ J 3 \ \mmy ^ % wmw 

' ^ .0* .»!*« "^b * j.ft v ♦••'*, 'b* ’* o^ C ’ .».. 

-ft ° vr 0 ° .° - * 

**tu r& a * «a* .A s * Kt, a % 




•$ 



» 

* <£* ^ 

•^T ^Kyv 5 '’* <tr 

k **° <r 

** V 

A, 

W 

.^v : im^» 

<lv V, * %liS * 
i <y %. *^rf*' v 
’ • •£/♦ *b aV 

* _oCVTV # j5 

1 - 




A* 1* 




- % 

, _ ’* ++0* 

' Jp^* -Sfe’o 

♦ /n -4U # «t>U\\Sx^ * kV ’•" s. 

%. **^*’,/' V"*: v ^o’ sr «b %,„. 

^ > . v .i*o. %, 

a x?* * 

^°*** a° A 

r Q- o^V * 

0 ft # ^ll<- ° A^ ^ 



4> 






fP o. ‘^ir.SsP ■% .'>»»»•. 

* AV ».L-rv-J** 

* ^ 9 : 

;* ^ *J5!?Jf*V \«»5* / ^ 

iXtiZZ&i %. , c ,*^w. o # t .jL^r, ^ c c» -*••' 
-*• 0 * ’’bv^ :im&:~ 


aV^. * 

c 



<^5 ^ 




v H™,. 1 >- 0 V -Wss.-- •g.'-vft 

# >i^r * jo p /% a Svi///«5p ♦ A A * wdWvw ft k> ” a. ^^yyyDlJjr 

* *M® 9 ,<b v o ' ^ Jr 

> <? ..... % ^ ..... ^ ••• .<> ,. °4. '■"•'* 

*£* ftf(CVv’«/H,® ’’^'’pv .A y»*i 

o V^vC^ A v ft^W/k° ^ 


<r +■ 


• o' 



^O* A 

. Ay # l 1 * „ ^S>. 

0 jjr * % *mi: %■ 

v>*^ rp- ^ &Ul//>£r> •* 


tv - 

4 " ^ ^ * 


4 A 

r\^ a n « *5P* 

V 0 4 . iQ 




v^«. s 


S* 5?^ # -i 
% *■.».*’ A 0 J 




% 

. - <-» F • 

$ * » 
y o 

. \v ^ • M • 

, V »*• ®* 

* y<* r&MMV, %$* • JaM&* **** * J 

* ^ ^ ^ **%/]$[§$* ^ '\j>^ 


* O v « 

^6* ^ 

^ V 

v o_ - 



*'.%'■ <y. *'?-^*' «&*■ W '♦< 

.J^ ( . 4 » » , <>. qV „•«•, 


c ♦ 

^o< • 

o <a5 

% . ~r f_etr'T~ T rv '<£• # % kV ” «. 

<3 ♦//,•♦ .q j c\ 

^ 4? *L^L> ^ V % . T *®^ ’C> 

• <&» ,# /<£*©* ^ ** *>Va % ^ <& 

*H£y=i* 

^ r ^ 'C^X •5 CvR^»* 



4° 

1 x*i^Lf* 


/\ °.y^»' .gif; • 

*•* '®*** A 0' 

^ ^ -Cr *»!■♦ o a: 

4 ^- a .tfi. ;./•<>••'^> • -A a % < ^NXs\\Tf^k* Wy 

?V •£&?&C r K+ v* cr c* 



^ '••«* t <V '..»* 

* « ^ 4^ , W • 9 ^ <£> 



o V 

:• • 


b *‘*< '*V° .. V'**^‘ ^ % *1?^ f o° %* 

•«> c\> aO *jV> <> i> v *»*o # <s\ »••* % 



^ ^ O 




^ -5 


c/p 




:'•> 


aV^> e 
^ ^ o 


\ <* *'o.L** ^ A 

t *’ : ;* ^P C t • •■ 'J-# ^ r 0^ 4 


<o 


^oK 
P^, 






* ^ 

‘ o ; ^ # * 


^9*. 

hT w * < 


vv • 


J Ji 

•••*' y *:%.* 

o^. <■# »ys^v* ^ ^ «>w. ^ 
^ V, V WWW: WW, 


°U . , v . v <i>,. 


** 4 *Jy *b *+<y7**'w& <!> '^* *** A o^ %,***$*••*& 

J^ds^aS y\wj?k~ X <P .3^f % 4^ ‘ 

fi WERT [I 

1 SSW^ M 3 


Crantville, 

Nov Dec 1988 

we 'e UuiMv &ournJ 


[■’’ „ *%. v 


^5 


V iP ^ « 


^ aJ 


^°°,, %yTx°'\y \ **W\W w \j* 
’ /£$kw>\ W W wk'Sw %. W* * 

































































































































































































































































































































































